161–170 of 692 posts
As for the parts of it that really are his, he'll probably get that back from the FBI when they eventually return his equipment so I don't think his life's work is lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actual text in the story doesn't match the title. It's pretty obvious if you read it.
>The actual text in the story doesn't match the title. It's pretty obvious if you read it. I did read it. Title is definitely reflective of the articles content. Did you read it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google offered "as much storage as you need" for the Workspace account, without attaching a condition on a required number of seats. It's not a loophole if a customer takes them up on the offer. I'm usually sympathetic with businesses who failed to appreciate how much power very few power users really have, but this is Google we're talking about. Their sales and legal department is larger than 90% of tech companies.…
This is like getting kicked out of McDonalds for ordering a small order of french fries and instead eating 400 ketchup packets. Things are free when people don't abuse it. Just be normal. Jesus.
Well, no, things are free until they stop being free.
Who gets to decide what "normal" means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "Google Promises Unlimited Cloud Storage; Then Cancels Plan; Then Tells Journalist His Life’s Work Will Be Deleted Without Enough Time To Transfer The Data" Correct. 7 days is not enough time to stream >200TB of data, let alone find a place to stream it to. This puts a human being in a crisis position. He doesn't need to just find someone willing to store his data.…
Crisis (!?) is a bit dramatic. Google response isn't correct but everyone here has there hands a bit dirty. Storing 237 Tb on an unlimited server - the individual clearly knew they were taking advantage of a system and probably should have been ready for some kind of remedy.
Google clearly made a mistake in offering an "unlimited plan" so it makes perfect sense that they're going to discontinue it, and offer 60 days before the data becomes read only. If it was just that, there wouldn't be any article.
The fact that they regret offering an unlimited plan doesn't, however, give them the right to tell him that they're going to give him 60 days before the data becomes read only but it won't be deleted and then suddenly tell him that actually his data is going to be deleted in 7 days, which isn't sufficient time to transfer it elsewhere.
It appears that he had a Workspace account which offered “unlimited” storage for a time, predicated on the account type being multiuser businesses or education, with a per-seat fee. Google phased out the unlimited storage awhile ago (over a year) after people discovered a loophole where paying for one account still provided unlimited storage. Predictable abuse followed (see /r/datahoarders). While I’m sympathetic to…
Google offered "as much storage as you need" for the Workspace account, without attaching a condition on a required number of seats. It's not a loophole if a customer takes them up on the offer. I'm usually sympathetic with businesses who failed to appreciate how much power very few power users really have, but this is Google we're talking about. Their sales and legal department is larger than 90% of tech companies.…
Let's assume it's AWS storage. After you stop paying (renewing) would you still expect to keep your data forever free of cost?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this way until I had kids.
Catastrophic? People managed to have kids long before computers and cheap photos. They were happy with the tens of good pictures a year they managed to get on film.
It is like saying losing electricity forever should not be catastrophic event, people were living happily without it for 1000s of years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also banned encrypted files, effectively kicking off everyone using it for backup. I assume this means they look at your photos and other data.
What? How can they tell the difference between an encrypted file vs. some binary format they simply don't understand?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, say all you want about AWS pricing, but damn if Amazon doesn't go out of their way to support things for a very long time.
To add to that, and related to, >I've had customers get their cloud accounts shut down for a literal three cent billing error I once just stopped paying an AWS bill on a small website I abandoned (few USD/month), came back to check after a long while and I was surprised to find out how long does it take for AWS to actually shut you down. Also on AWS, on two different occasions I screwed up and got a high ticket bill:…
I reached out to our account rep at AWS and asked if we could delay our bills for three months. They laughed and said that if we didn't pay our bill for three months their system would just send us a bunch of emails, but that they wouldn't even start the process of closing the account until at least three months had passed- and even then they'd delay it further for us.
We got a new funding round and paid all of our bills, but we would not have been able to make payroll if AWS wasn't so lenient about it. That was 2020, so almost three years ago, and that company is still regularly featured at AWS talks and product announcements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that but they actually provide real support. I once complained on Twitter that I was having trouble with an EKS issue, and the product manager for EKS reached out to me directly, put me in contact with one of their engineers, and then they discovered an issue and rolled out a fix for it that day. In a separate incident, I couldn't get GCP to read the verification data for a domain from their webmaster tools…
It's not support if you have to complain on a public forum though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only that but they actually provide real support. I once complained on Twitter that I was having trouble with an EKS issue, and the product manager for EKS reached out to me directly, put me in contact with one of their engineers, and then they discovered an issue and rolled out a fix for it that day. In a separate incident, I couldn't get GCP to read the verification data for a domain from their webmaster tools…
It's not support if you have to complain on a public forum though.
I think that parent post was just implying that AWS cares about it's image and will provide support even if you don't go down the correct channels.
Google doesn't give a shit regardless of the method of request.